tv [untitled] December 6, 2013 2:00pm-2:31pm PST
2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals, the preceding officer this evening is board president chris hwang and joined tonight by lazarus and fung and honda and hurtado. >> the deputy city attorney robert brian and will provide the board with any needed legal advice and at the controls it the legal assistant victor and we are joined with the department who have the cases before the board tonight and scott sanchez and they are both representing the planning department and commission. joseph duffy is here representing the department of building inspection and actually he is not here at the moment but i believe that he will be here sthoertly and carly short is here, and the urban forester representing the department of public works and
john, the manager of the public of works, and the street and the mapping and he is not already in the room i believe that he is joined and jarvis is here representing the san francisco transportation agency and division of taxis and if you could go over the board's meeting guidelines and conduct in the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all of your phones and pagers so that they will not disturb the proceedings and carry on the conversations in the hallway, the rules of presentation are as follows, appellant and permit holders and department representatives have seven minutes to present the case and three minutes for rebuttal, the people affiliated with the parties must include the comments in the three or seven-minute periods, the members of the public that are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to address the board but no rebuttals to assist the boards, members of the public are wished to speak on an item are asked but not required to
submit a speaker card or a business card to the board staff when you come up to the podium. cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium and the board welcomes your comments and suggestions there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, speak to the staff during the break or call the board office tomorrow morning, the office is located at 1650 mission street, room 304 between duvos and vanness avenues, this is broadcast live on san francisco government television, cable channel 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgov tv, thank you for your attention and at this point in time we will conduct the swearing in process. and if you intend to testify at any of the hearing and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight
and please stand and raise your right happened after you have been sworn in or affirmed. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pure to the oath. >>. thank you. so commissioners at this time, there are two housekeeping items that i want to alert you to and the first has to do with item seven which is appeal 13.113,. the planning department approval and this is for an alter ration permit, that matter has been withdrawn and will not be heard this evening, likewise, item 10, 117, an alter ration permit on jackson
street has been withdrawn and will not be heard. >> so then we will go to item one which is public comment for any member of the public who would like to speak on an item that is not on tonight's calendar? >> good evening commissioners, i am a resident of staoet and county of san francisco. and i am newly, and getting adjusted to all of the lovely city policies, and the departments responsibilities and authorities. and i spoken on behalf of some people, in prior hearings, and we are at a hearing where misleading rhetoric was used and so i am trying to figure out how does the commission combat the misleading rhetoric
when no statements or evidence are submitted to the appeal and the city agency, you know, is it required by the city agencies submit a written brief, is it required that the committee submit a written brief? when no evidence is submitted, and you know, how is that weighted? the other question as a citizen, just, not as, you know, something to think about, what authorities are available to the commission, to combat bad behavior in for repeat offenders besides permit revocation and do you take away the business license? can you hold other kind of penalties it is a big charter. and the third question is what should this commission require from dpw and other city agencies for each particular hearing, and what weights and measures does this commission use to make its determination?
i feel dpw should at least be required to submit a statement and relevant code if they are going to reference it. and not from the website because there is inferences and misleading statement and just because of the way that the website is written, but from the charter itself to back up the statements made at hearings. they should have all applications receipts and charges handy and they should have evidence of the due diligence of presenting the complaints of the 311 and the systems of the company that have the complained filed against them and you know yelp is a good tool as well, the companies should be required to submit a statement in response to any appeal as well as the relevant code they intend to rye rely on and the statements
at least from the workers that were there and or at least the workers that were present during any kind of a questionable thing, but the end result is the burden is placed on the individual, not the property owner, not dpw, not the company to report all of these things to 311, sfpd. dpw the department of urban service and it gets sloped around and i would ask you that. take that into consideration. >> any other public comment under this item? >> >> good evening, my name is brian and i am a attorney that appears in front of this board from time-to-time. i was originally slated to
appear on-line 7 which miss gold fine announced was withdrawn from the calendar and just on behalf of my client to show up and express my dissatisfaction this this process and how it has affected the permit holders here. i think that you are familiar with this case, and very briefly, we were schedule to come back today for the third time on a single appeal. and there have been no less than 6 or 7 appeals this year from the same group of appellants. we have taken the position that these are frivolous done with mal intent and to harass and that has not gone over well. they have spent ridiculous amounts of money and i think that last week the permit holder spent $75,000 in permit fees along. and they are saying that the appellants had taken dr and on this property. and concerning the same permit that we are here and would have been here today on the appeal,
but the dr was supposed to take place in june and the city staff had to scrutinize the plans and the meeting were held with the permit holders and the requesters and the planning department ultimately recommended that the city not take the discretionary review and hours before the hearing, these requesters withdrew their request. and that allowed them to then appeal the same permits and that is what we have been doing for the last few months and that started in october. last week, we tried to put an end to it and get the special revisions and the permit so that they could not be appealed and we could complete this job and there was support for that and we were asked to come back today. >> they took advantage of this procedure and withdrew their appeal just before 4:00 today. this was not the result of a settlement agreement and we have made no deal with the other side, this is just their tactic. and so prevented you from doing what we should have gotten last
week, and we now will have to go in, and you ply for permit which they will have the ability to appeal and i will not be surprise if they withdraw that appeal or withdraw it before they have to appear before the board again. on behalf of my client, it is just a dissatisfaction for how he and his wife have been treated through this out this is hes and the resistance that we have had from the board to recognize what we are saying and i believe that we have documented repeatedly and what should be taken when reviewing the filings and four sets of attorneys, and three sets of consultants and appeal and appeal and they are based on safety and clearly i think that it was apparent last week that we are not talking about safety issues. i hope that in the future, some kind of procedures can be done to weed out the frivolous filedings or abuse of the
process. thank you for your time. >> thank you, is there any other public comment on this item? >> please step forward. good evening, commissioners vice president lazarus, and president hwang, and i am steve and i am a regular here unfortunately. and i am the owner of 68 procidio with my wife. and as my attorney just addressed this you, there is one other thing that i wanted to point out to you. and that is as of last night, the appellant contacted my attorney through his attorney, and said, you know, if you would only get rid of your fire escape, we would be willing to drop our appeal tonight. and so, i find this very disturbing, okay? and appalling that an entire campaign was mounted for the last 13 weeks and for actually a year all around safety. and now, all of a sudden, the
neighbor wants us to get rid of our fire escape. i mean, it is, the hypocracy is unbelievable these people should be made an example of and i realize that the board does not have the jurisdiction to do that, and my passion of dealing with the year of this and the cost of this and the emotional stress of having to do this. and so i will only say that to you to put a perspective on this. and why i am frustrated in support of what my attorney just said is the game that is being played here is by withdrawing this appeal tonight, as far as i know, and i am not an attorney, okay? i am just a home owner, and i am a simple guy. is that now, when we submit, okay? a revision, which has already been submitted to the board last week, okay? for the change of the doors, they could have an opportunity to appeal this again and we are
back in it from this. and we have had enormous financial damages to this. i think that the board as smart as you are all, nothing is getting fooled by what is going on here and i am just sitting here saying, any way that we can get a conditional permit that is not appealable, based on the fact they got another week, last week to come up with this. and that is where i am coming from right now. and so with that, i ask the board to take that into consideration, and i ask you to make the judgment that i think that you do very well. and i appreciate your time and efforts and i am sorry that we have to be back here again based on this, harassment and manipulation process. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, is there any other comment under item 1. >> this is for items that are not on tonight's calendar.
>> i would like to show this photo. i am a member of the park merced coalition. >> does this have to do with the appeals regarding the removal of the trees at park merced. >> this has to do with brotherhood way and nothing to do with that. it has brotherhood way has been 90 percent loved and last month the person from harber way said that it was cut because of an accident in 2003. and in 2010 and certified in 2011 the eir for the project was approved and we feel that the eir has been violated, and there is i map in there showing that these trees on brotherhood way were to be kept and we have written a letter to planning and it has gone to code
enforcement. we know that there is increased noise, wind and i suspect air quality change. and you should drive by brotherhood way and look at it. and if it were me, would i get a geologist to inspect the slope of the hill, personally, i think that in an earthquake or in the heavy rain the hill could slide and only one of these people, if they are found liable to be cited, for violations, we will want the hill replanted but we will see no reason why they love the hill to begin with. so, that is my report. >> do you care to state your name for the record >> my name is cathy and i am the member of the park merdec action coalition. >> thank you. >> any other public under item number one? >> okay, seeing none, then we will move to item two, commissioners comments and
questions. >> no. >> none and, then item three, commissioners is the adoption of the november 13, board minutes. >> any changes, >> no comment. >> i love to adopt the minutes. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? >> okay, seeing none, if you could call the roll please? >> on that motion from the president to adopt the november 13, 2013 minutes, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 5-0, and those minutes are adopted. >> okay, thank you, with the president's consent we are going to call out of order, 4 c which is a rehearing request. it matter was continued on august 14th to allow the dpw
process for a subdivision of the land to take place, and then to come back to the board. and my party has contacted me and informed me that the dpw had made a decision about the last foot and we agreed on this evening and that is why it is on the calendar tonight. and however, i learned just today, that the dpw has changed its mind about the lot split, and so there is some disagreement now about whether or not the matter should be heard this evening. and the president has agreed to allow the parties to discuss that with you tonight before we decide whether or not to hear the item. and president hwang i am wondering if the best thing to do first is to ask dpw to come forward and explain. >> that is what i was thinking as well. >> we will have dpw come and explain today's reversal of the earlier decision about the
split? >> good eving, my name is bruce and i am the city and county surveyer and i don't think that i have met any of you in the first time that i have been in front of you. this morning, i issued a rescinded my tentative approval of this project and the condition that no build statement go on the map. and in the interest, that not that this gets a second look, but i in retroexpect, i wanted planning and building to have the opportunity to make a development, determination, that i think is probably, inappropriate for me to make. >> i don't think that the board has the background, that the parties have about the original decision. so maybe you if could explain what was decided first and then what the change was. >> in this original subdivision, this parcel in
1962 there is a line on or through the middle of the parcel that is labeled bsl, building set back line. the parcel map that was submitted to our department essentially splits the parcel along that line. with some minor variations. i made the determination that that was a intended to be a no build zone. and conditioned our approval on that and had the statement going on the map that this built could not been on and we were going to allow the subdivision but you could not do anything with the property. you could not build on it. >> and then as i understood, what you said that you are not qualified to make such a decision? >> such a determination, therefore you have rescinded that? >> correct. >> and who do you believe is qualified? >> planning. >> and what is the basis for your authority in the first
instance? you did make that initial determination? >> i am able in my position to make or put conditions on the map, where the dpw is essentially the lead agency. and in read visiting this and looking at the map being 50 years old and the possibility existing that the environment in the city, is different than it was 50 years ago. i look strictly at it and what happened in 1962 and i made an assumption on this line based on what the subdivision was in 1962 solely. and i was not thinking about current administration or current planning issues or zoning issues. >> you took no, are you saying that you made a decision without consulting with any other bodies or entities? >> yes. >> and is that your normal
practice? >> it is rare that i make a decision like this on a map. >> but you have done it before? >> yes. >> have you ever rescinded a position before? >> not in this. i have rescinded to approvals but not for a situation like this. >> and the correlary there was there were certain portions of the lots that were designated as open space. when you made the determination, initial determination that it was not buildable, were you determining that it was designated as open space? >> no place on the map do i see the term open space.
i saw this particular locating pattern in the subdivision and i saw the repeated building set back lines through the subdivision and my assumption was that the i intent was not to build on those areas, within those lots. >> okay. >> will you be issuing any documentation on this decision? >> i issued a letter to scott sanchez and to the developer, this morning. >> this morning? >> yes. >> this allows a process to... the process can begin again, and we will rerefer it to the planning department and they can weigh in on it and give it a general plan approval or not. and then, if somebody wants to appeal, after there is another tentative decision, that the ability is to go before the
board of supervisors at that time if they would like. >> any other questions? >> okay. so maybe we can hear from the planning next. >> sure. >> thank you. >> we can welcome back mr. sanchez previously. >> i gos that he has lost weight. >> >> on the crest line drive and maybe a little bit more background here and to research them and it is to be on a vacant portion of the parcel and it was submitted in 2009 and the planning department reviewed this and as part of the project, they were also proposing to do a subdivision but the building permit moved separately of the subdivision, our department reviewed this and we found that there was
significant neighborhood opposition and issues were raised and concerns are raised about the compatibility from the neighborhood and concerns that there was a condition of approval from the original subdivision that occurred as 50 years ago. and there is a belief that there was a condition of approval. the discretionary review and they decided not to take the staff recommendation and when the permit was reviewed they appealed this to you. i believe that the subdivision was not submitted to a few days prior to that hearing and so, we want to have any view, and any determination from dpw when you first heard this item and voted 4-1 for deny the permit.
that condition of approval was not a factor in the board's original decision on the matter but it was new information that was presented at the time of the rehearing request. the board voted to continue the matter to the call of the share to allow the subdivision process to be finalized and there was a compliance with the planning code and we also we
received word that they will rescind the approval of the map and we will be getting a new referral and there will be no condition imposed by dpw and asking us to take a look at whether or not there should be a condition and based upon our review of the building permit application and we did not find a condition of approval but we will review this again, and the appellants will have the ability to submit the materials to us if we have more information about whether they think it should be a condition of approval. and we will consider that in the review of the application but at this point, i would assume that we will approve the subdivision application and what was issued by dpw will be appealed by any party within ten days. so that is where we are on this
matter. my thought would be that maybe it is a good question to continue the hearing and that is what i suggested to the party when i found out about the decision because of the last hearing of the board they wanted finalty, before taking an action. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, when you mentioned the appeal within ten days, that is not appealable here. >> that is correct. it is the board of supervisors and so that issuance on september the 11th was appealed to the board of supervisors and the appeals to the board of supervisors. >> the permit holder wants to speak?
>> i am here on behalf of the permit holder tonight and i would echo mr. sanchez's comments and remind the board that how or why it continued this case, back in july and immediately prior to the hearing, i think that the day before the hearing we received a letter or an e-mail stating that he thought that there would be a no build condition on the subdivision until the map had been approved or denied in the final form. and because that is very clearly material there was no
hearing date schedule and the idea was that we would, that we would wait until the subdivision map was final and that any appeal relating to the subdivision map would be resolved by the board of supervisors and then we will come back here on at peel for the building permit and when he issued his tentative subdivision map approval in september, we then agreed that we would come back here for this hearing, that the matter would be resolved and if you heard from mr. sanchez and mr. stores both, and there is not a further process related to the subdivision map and i think that everybody agrees that process will land in front of the board of supervisors and so we just encourage you to continue the matter again,